2016 (12) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Present for the Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Bhatnagar, D.R. PER: S.K. MOHANTY Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 30.12.2011, the officers of the DGCEI visited the business premises of one M/s. Indian Steel, Raipur and seized several records and documents. It is revealed fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. By the impugned order, the Commissioners (Appeals) set aside the redemption fine and otherwise the appeals were rejected. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The main contention of the ld. Counsel is that the demand was raised on the basis of third party evidence. The DGCEI Officers had not visited the factory premises and the records ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce, which require corroboration. In the present case, the corroboration said to have been made is the admission statement of the appellant/assesses. Revenue stopped investigation on recording statement. No further verification or evidence was sought to be recovered for the clandestine manufacture, first of M.S. Ingots and thereafter, from M.S. Ingots to M.S. Angles, etc. and thereafter, their unac....